The first official action of the new GOP controlled House was to block extension of unemployment benefits through the end of the year.
Nice.
Perhaps if they had instantly created gobs of new jobs as they promised FIRST, then this action may have been warranted. After all, I couldn't agree more that we can't have a nation living forever on unemployment. But, if there are no jobs available - then all they have accomplished is to move the jobless from unemployment to welfare. That is counter productive all around.
But wait! The Tea Party is just beginning! Next up they will keep their promise to make sure these new jobless, welfare recipients also don't have access to health care either. Disgusting.
Well at least those rich folks will have a nice cushy Holiday with all their nice tax cuts. They need it more - right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
I blogged the exact same thing today!
A quick, easy decision to block the unemployment extension but STILL debating whether or not to extend the bush top 2% tax cut, 'cause ya know they really need that tax cut to make the wealth "trickle down".
The GOP better create some new jobs and fast or else those 2 million forced off unemployment (just in time for the holidays) just may revolt!
I'm always amused at Liberals who love to claim that they are all for fiscal responsability and making the "hard choices" that everyone agrees are needed, BUT, when responsable legislators actually begin to make some hard choices, and refuse to continue to saddle our children and grand children with outragous debt; in effect passing the burden on to them to make our lives a little easier,and making them pay for our foolish mistakes and inept mismanagement, these same Liberals have a hissy fit!
I think this perfectly demonstrates which side of the aisle is serious about making hard choices and getting the runaway spending that is pushing this country towards bankruptcy under control, and which side is primarily interested in just spinning everything for selfish and short term political gain.
"I couldn't agree more that we can't have a nation living forever on unemployment." Yeah,right...with all due respect,Den, I think you are full of crap when you say that...if this extension was passed, you would be saying the exact same thing a few months from now when that extension expires, and then the next extension, and the next...
Let the Liberals and Lefties throw thier little temper tantrums, and wail like the spoiled little children they are...the Adults are back in charge of the House!
"..if there are no jobs available - then all they have accomplished is to move the jobless from unemployment to welfare.
Yup,that's it: that is the Liberal mindset perfectly expressed,that we're all just helpless children who need the nanny state to care for us.
I suppose that there might exist some people who, when their unemployment insurance is getting near the end, might start to think about applying for Welfare. But I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of people in this country would have a totally different response to that situation. They would start to look harder for work (which many of them would then find), and they would also begin to consider types of work that they might have not considered previously.
We all know people who get on unemployment and then basically go on a sort of vacation for a few months, and don't seriously start looking for work until the checks are about to stop arriving (come on, tell the truth! you've probably been that person yourself at one time; I know I have...it's just human nature). If these people know that they are going to get another extension, do you really think that they will try as hard to find work? Get real.
And sometimes, we all have to swallow our pride and maybe take a crappy job that we never would have considered before, and stick it out until the economy improves and/or something better comes along. There is nothing wrong with that; it's not something to be ashamed of.
Unless, you are disabled, or with dependant children, going on Welfare should, quite properly, be shamefull.
Call it Tough Love if you want, but it is far more compassionate to force someone to stand on their own two feet, than to be an enabler of their loss of self respect and dignity by making it easy for them to get on Welfare.
But of course, that's exactly what the Dems want...a dependant permenant underclass of Serfs. It's part of their core constituancy...it's only natural that Democrat politicians, or at least the ones who are primarily concerned only with their own personal power (most of them), would want to keep as many people dependant as possible on a government check, and thus guarantee that they continue to vote for more of the same.
"The GOP better create some new jobs and fast or else those 2 million forced off unemployment (just in time for the holidays) just may revolt!"
Catch up, Denny! They already revolted two years ago when they rejected a Republican party that had abondoned most of it's core conservative principles and had morphed into just another, slightly saner, version of the Big Government Democrats.
That's how Obama got elected. Now, thanks in a great degree to Obama's total incompetence (and arragance) and to the Tea Parties, the Republicans have been given another chance. But they can easily blow this chance too if they don't step up and provide the leadership that this country is lacking, and really start to make the tough decisions that are going to be needed to cut spending, and shrink the role of Government in our lives and in the economy.
That's what the election a few weeks ago was all about.
Strap on your seat-belt; it's going to be a bumpy ride!
Andre,
As someone who has had the misfortune of losing his job in October, I am now on unemployment. I DO NOT WANT TO BE UNEMPLOYED. I've worked practically every day since I was 16. I've never had anything handed to me, nor do I want it to be.
"They would start to look harder for work (which many of them would then find), and they would also begin to consider types of work that they might have not considered previously."
I am now interviewing for jobs paying almost 20K less than I was making just 10 months ago, and would gladly take it over unemployment. I'm finding out that I'm up against HUNDRENDS of other people in the postitions I'm applying for. I'm not sitting on my ass for 6 months until my benefits end so I could then magically find a job.
I think my situation is much more the norm than your version of people sitting around their house, living off the government until the very last second before they try to find a job.
Thohea,
Obviously, people act both ways. It would be very interesting to see a scientific study on it ( I wonder if any have been done?)
We're both relying on anecdotal evidence here, and all I can say is that it is my impression,based on observation of people that I have known, that the behavior that I described is far from uncommon (I don't believe I ever said it was the "norm"). But then again, maybe that just means that I hang around more slackers than you do (myself, the biggest slacker of them all!).
Hang in there, and try not to get too discouraged...the tide will turn.
Look at this.
Absorb it.
Really, really think about it and what it means for our future. All of us,Left & Right, Gay & Straight, Liberal & Conservative.
If we don't ACT on this knowledge FAST, all of our lives are going to change in ways we can't even begin to understand.
It should be a wake up call for all of us.
Cut & paste:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253732/cost-debt-explosion-veronique-de-rugy
And remember; the graph linked to above represents a "best case" scenario...which means, that most likely it's going to be worse instead of better.
Andre,
Look at this.
Absort it.
Really, really think about what it means for all of us.
The number of people kept out of poverty by unemployment insurance rose to 3.3 million in 2009. These were not projected numbers either.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3294
If republicans are really worried about the mounting debt, why not start with refusing to extend Bush's tax cut for the rich.
Consider this:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3294
In its January report, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020,” the CBO projects that a full extension of the Bush tax cuts, plus a permanent fix to the Alternative minimum tax, will cost $3.7 trillion over 10 years, not including debt service costs. The Joint Committee on Tax estimated in a March 2010 report, “Present Law And The President’s Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Proposals Related To Selected Individual Income Tax Provisions Scheduled To Expire Under The Sunset Provisions Of The Economic Growth And Tax Relief Reconciliation Act Of 2001,” that the cost of extending just those cuts that affect people making less than $250,000 and permanently fixing the alternative minimum tax will cost $3 trillion. The difference—a bit less than $700 billion—is the cost of extending just those cuts for the wealthy.
The CBO only presents a strict accounting of the lost revenue of tax cuts. It does not take into account the increased tax revenues due to increased economic activities that result from lower taxation.
Reagan proved this. Tax revenue soared during his years in the wake of his tax cuts (unfortunately, the Democrat controlled Congress spent the money even faster than it came in and thus deficits also soared).
At a time of high unemployment, why would you want to punish and hamstring the prime wealth and job creators, while at the same encouraging them to take their wealth and industry to other more tax friendly locations?
Foolish, foolish, foolish.
When many people hear the term "the rich" they imagine wealthy playboys and spoiled trust fund brats ( ala Paris Hilton), when in fact, the majority of people in this country who earn over 250K are small and medium sized business owners.
These are the people who create most of the jobs. They are "the rich".
Rather than be punished for their success, they should be rewarded for their creativity and hard work, which make it possible for untalented schlubs like me to have a job at all.
Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank (and yes, many Big Government Republicans too) thought that they knew better ways to spend these peoples money, and look where that has got us; on the verge of national bankruptcy and economic catastrophe.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3294
I considered it.
Only in the strange world of a Liberal Think Tank would unemployment
insurance and food stamps be considered an "escape from poverty". (And then, predictably, they call for more of the same.)
To a Conservative, these things are the very definition of "poverty".
I guess it's just a different world view: To Liberals the goal sometimes seems to be to get as many people dependent on Unemployment and Foodstamps as possible. For Conservatives the goal is to have as few people as dependant on them as possible.
Our common goal should be to build a economy that is strong and vibrant enough that no one (or very, very few) needs these things
Andre, we could go on and on siting study after study, poll after poll. For example, I could point you here:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html
Where is shows that total publicly held debt stood at $3.3 trillion at the beginning of fiscal year 2002, four months after President Bush signed the first package of tax cuts into law. Six years later publicly held debt passed $5 trillion. Not only did the Bush tax cuts not produce a $2 trillion debt reduction (as promised); they had precisely the opposite effect. In fact, the Bush tax cuts have directly added $2.5 trillion to the national debt in the full 10 years that they have been law.
I could point you there, but what good would it do?
Instead, I'd love to know more about your "lighter" side. I'm sure someone as sarcastic as you has one (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic).
Surely you're not all politics and religion.
And just for the record...
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/let_cuts_expire.html
Of course, conservatives often argue that we will harm small businesses if we let the tax rates for these richest 2 percent go back to what they were under President Clinton. The data belie that claim. A recent report from the Joint Committee on Taxation points out that less than 3 percent of all taxpayers with any positive business income at all—big or small—would be affected by the increase in rates. In addition, the JCT reminds us that even the few businesses that are potentially subject to these tax hikes are not actually all that small: “These figures for net positive business income do not imply that all of the income is from entities that might be considered ‘small.’ For example, in 2005, 12,862 S Corporations and 6,658 partnerships had receipts of more than $50 million.” In other words, not only will just 3 percent of taxpayers with any business income be affected, but many of these taxpayers aren’t even small business owners at all. This conclusion is entirely consistent with other, similar reports.
Thohea,
You seem to be confusing revenue and spending.
Pointing out the increase in the National Debt during the Bush years says nothing directly about the stimulatory effects of the Bush tax cuts, it merely points out the institutional compulsion of Washington to spend more than it takes in. Old news.
The correct measure of the effect of tax cuts isn't how deeper into debt a proliferate Congress spends us in the years that follow. No, the correct measure would be the ensuing yearly changes, whether up or down, in total Federal revenue.
Take a look at the columns below:
Year Receipts Outlays
2002 1,853.51 2,010.9
2003 1,782.3 2,159.9
2004 1,880.1 2,292.9
2005 2,153.6 2,472.0
2006 2,406.9 2,655.1
2007 2,568.0 2,728.7
2008 2,524.0 2,982.6
2009 2,105.0 3,517.7
(in billions)
Notice any trends?
1. Once the effects of the Bush tax cuts began to kick in there was steady growth in Federal revenue, until the last years of the Bush Presidency when others factors took dominance and lead us into our current decline.
2. More was spent every year than came in to the Ttreasury, and the total spending increased every single year, regardless of whether Federal revenues were tracking up or tracking down.
Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
(By the way, I got those figures from a report by The Urban Institute and The Brookings Institution; two well known, left of center, Liberal think tanks.)
What do you mean, my lighter side?
This IS my lighter side!
Andre,
Ok then, enough about your ligher side.
Bush argued in selling his huge tax cuts that, “I know a lot of folks around America are worried about national debt, as am I. We [will] pay down $2 trillion of debt over the next 10 years.” Not only that, said Bush, but, “We’ve got a trillion dollars of contingency set aside over the next 10 years. And there’s still money left over. There’s still money left over.”
(Taken from a February 28, 2001 speech in Omaha)
But let's hit it from a different angle, shall we?
The economy boasted 132 million jobs in June of 2001, the month that the first of the Bush tax cuts was signed into law. Three years later, in June of 2004, there were just 131.4 million jobs. The economy did not add a single new job during three years under the Bush tax cuts. The next three years were better than the first three as the private sector struggled back to its feet following the first Bush recession. By June of 2007, before the start of the Great Recession (Or as its know around my town The Obama Recession), total jobs had grown to 137.7 million. Overall, the six years following the Bush tax cuts saw a 4.8 percent increase in jobs.
Compare that to President Clinton, who after raising taxes in 1993, oversaw an economy that went from 111 million jobs in August of that year to 129 million jobs six years later - an increase of 16.2 percent, and more than three times better than under the Bush tax cuts.
But, like I said before, what does it really matter? We can both have our own opinions. That's the great thing about being an American.
A few quibbles..
1. "The Bush Recession"? More accurate to refer to it as "The Clinton Recession" if only because it began during the last two quarters of the Clinton Administration ( but that's not to imply that it was necessarily Clinton's fault; there is a natural business cycle that, to a great degree, is impervious to whether the President at the time has D or R after his name.)
The dearth of new job creation in the early years of the "Bush Recovery" was much commented upon at the time, partly because it was
so unusual, given the all the other positive indicators at that time. The term "Jobless Recovery" was much bandied about, as were many theories to attempt to explain it; but the larger point was that it was seen as an historical anomaly, probably related to the new phenomenon of "globalization" and the fundamental restructuring of world wide labor markets that lead to. But even if the Bush tax cuts did not lead to an economic expansion as huge as the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts did, the fact remains that most economists maintain that they were pivotal to that recovery never-the-less.
2. In your chronology of job growth during the Clinton years from 1993 through 1999, one little fact that you neglected to mention was the historic Republican takeover of Congress in '94 and the ensuing pivot of Clinton towards more Right leaning pro-growth economic policies that the '94 "Gingrich Revolution" forced on him. Was it purely coincidental that the job growth and deficit reduction of those years happened during the first time in 40 years that the Republicans controlled the House purse strings? Unlikely.
(On a related note, it is one of the ironies of history that the current Republican takeover of the House could actually be the best thing that could have happened for Obama, if he had the wisdom to exploit it the way Clinton did and use it as political cover to also move to more pro-growth economic policies. (alas, unlikely to happen, for a whole host of reasons).)
I agree with you that we both could cite studies and statistics back and forth to each other until the cows come home, but one thing we know for sure is that we are about to witness a very interesting experiment on all these theories on Jan 1, when the Bush Tax cuts expire. Or will they?
It's going to be very interesting.
I'll tell what though...I'll trade you the Bush tax cuts for the repeal of most of Obama-Care and a 20% across the board spending cut of the entire Federal budget.
What'dya say? Deal?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Just one more study...please.
Check this out, I just saw it today and I found it so provocative that I just had to share it with you:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/11/22/higher-taxes-wont-reduce-the-deficit/
Here's the teaser:
"In theory, raising taxes should be a way to increase revenues that can be used to reduce the federal deficit. In reality, increased tax revenues not only do not reduce the deficit, they lead to increased spending:"
The bottom line is that these researchers found that, historically, "over the entire post World War II era through 2009 each dollar of new tax revenue was associated with $1.17 of new spending. Politicians spend the money as fast as it comes in—and a little bit more."
This just reinforces my belief that the Federal Government is a voracious, insatiable beast, and the only way to hope to get it under control, before it devours all of us, is to slowly starve it to death (figure of speech).
Hence my "knee-jerk" rejection of any new taxes. They only feed the monster and make it hungry for more.
don't know what that means....
Happy Thanksgiving!
Turns out the Pilgims were Tea Partiers!
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253863/first-thanksgiving-frank-miniter?page=1
Each generation, it seems, is doomed to make the same mistakes as previous generations, and has to learn the same lessons all over again.
Pass the cranberry sauce, please.
I was trying to get in the last "word" even though I knew the attempt was futile. Oh well, I tried. ;-)
Happy Thanksgiving - tea partier or not.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253863/first-thanksgiving-frank-miniter?page=1
Ah, revisionist history. Don'tcha love it!
No right-wing historical revisionism is complete without a conspiracy theory and a sense of victimization at the hands of the liberal elite; so this real reason for Thanksgiving was deleted from the official story, is that it?
Thank God the famously capitalistic Native Americans were there to share with the pilgrims bounty from their individually owned, private plots of land.
Where's the "revision"?
This interpretation comes from William Bradford's own hand written account of what happened in those first years at Plymouth Colony.
In other words: primary, original sources.
I'm also a little confused by your reference to the Native Americans.
Yes, they had loads of practical knowledge of local flora and fauna; (how could they have survived in that environment for so many generations without accumulating such knowledge?)
But what would that have to do with the Pilgrim's figuring out that a private property based economic order beats the pants off of the collectivist alternative?
The Wampanogs (along with the rest of the indigenous tribes of North America), for all their practical skills, were still just a stone age people who hadn't even figured out the wheel yet.
Squanto might have been the man to ask about which trees were best to use to build a longbow, or where to go to catch eels, but economics lessons for modern civilizations probably wasn't a key ingredient in his medicine bag.
word
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7cUJTrxYqQ&feature=player_embedded
Andre - correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like the gentleman from Chicago mentioned in the video managed to build a thriving business during a time when tax rates were much higher than they are now.
Maybe, maybe not...we don't really know enough about his business history to determine that (for all we know, the biggest growth years of his business may have occurred in the wake of the huge tax cuts of the "Reagan Revolution").
But that's hardly the point, is it?
The thing we do know is that we have had 19 continuous months with unemployment above 9% (the first time that has happened since the Great Depression). Is this really the time to further hamstring and punish the primary job creators in our economy?
Don't just keep the Bush tax cuts, expand them!
PS: A majority of Republicans would support extending unemployment benefits as long as they are paid for by simultaneous spending cuts elsewhere. What we don't support is stealing the money from our children and grandchildren to pay for them, as the Democrats would so gleefully and thoughtlessly do.
It is exactly the point, and it it true because taxes haven't been this low for a very long time - which proves this man and many other successful businesses CAN AND DO create and run thriving businesses and still pay a fair share of taxes. This continued whining by the rich Republicans is total childish BS and we won't fall for it.
And please remember that extending these tax breaks for the rich will VERY MUCH ADD to the debt we hand to our children and grandchildren.
I think we all agree - spending cuts can and should be made. I am totally for tackling those earmarks - I've written about it before. But the government is funded by taxes and the debt won't go away by letting rich people pay less than they should. It is simple math.
If I understand you correctly, what you seem to be saying is that because a STRONG economy can simultaneously produce vigorous job growth and sustain high taxes, then it somehow follows that a WEAK economy should also be able to simultaneously produce vigorous job growth and sustain high taxes.
Huh?
How does that make any sense?
How did you get from point A to point B?
I've argued that in a weak economy that is not producing adequate job growth, higher taxes will only retard that economy's ability to expand job growth, and your rebuttal to that is to point out that a strong economy is capable of doing both?
Well, O.K.,sure..but how is that a rebuttal to my argument? If anything, it seems more likely to support rather than undermine my argument!).
It seems to me that what you call "childish BS" by the Republicans,is really nothing more than rational and clear headed, common-sense. At some level, you must understand this too, because you continue to make arguments, as above, which when fully thought out and led to their logical conclusions, actually lend support to the Republican position, rather than refute it.
We'll make a Log Cabin Republican out of you eventually!
I could never be a Republican. I have compassion for those less fortunate.
"...tax breaks for the rich will VERY MUCH ADD to the debt we hand to our children and grandchildren."
Wrong.
Tax breaks do not create debt.
SPENDING creates debt.
Regardless of how your income changes from one year to the next, it is only by consistently spending more than you earn that go into debt. That is the very definition of the word.
The fact that the Washington political establishment has for so many years, been consistently unable to understand and/or acknowledge what every common household budgeter understands is what has given birth to the Tea Party movement in the first place.
Washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Just as the cure for alcoholism isn't to give the alcoholic more booze, likewise the cure for Washington's out of control spending is not to give Washington more of our money!
Compassion?
To give just one example:
Republicans want to pay for any extension of unemployment benefits out of their own pockets (i.e. out of the existing budget by offsetting spending cuts).
Democrats want to fund benefit extensions by passing the burden onto future generations by increasing the National Debt.
Who is more compassionate; the man who takes money out of his own pocket to give to the needy, or the man who takes money from someone else (literally at the point of a gun)to give to the needy?
Think about it.
Regarding earmarks;
I await with much anticipation your future post praising the Senate and House Republicans for their recent unilateral banning of earmarks, and your kudos to the Tea Party Movement for creating the grass roots pressure that made such bans possible.
(I won't hold my breath.)
We have had a national debt (credit card debt - as it were) for many past administrations. We may have had budget surplus but we've not had a real surplus since I don't know when.
Due to reasons beyond my control I also currently have a bit of a credit card debt right now. If I stop spending right now - totally - will my credit card debt magically vanish? Of course not. I must also make money to pay off the debt and I need to make more than I did before to make up for the deficit. BOTH situations must occur or my debt will continue. And so it is with the national debt.
We need to cut spending on frivolous pet projects (but not on needed social programs including health care) and return our income (taxes) to a fair level. That is the only answer.
Who is pointing a gun at the rich to pay their fair taxes?? You really got me on that one.
I started the grass roots earmarks movement back in 2005. http://denbec.blogspot.com/2005/12/ill-have-2-eggs-over-easy-with-ham-and.html
You are leaving out one HUGE factor in your personal credit card analogy; having run up a credit card debt larger than you would like to be carrying, will you now go out and use your credit card even more than you did before? I'm not talking about necessary spending, I'm talking about buying all your friends dinner every night at the most expensive restaurants in town and then going out to a chic club and buying drinks for the house all night long!
That would be a more appropriate analogy for the way that Washington spends OUR money.
"Who is pointing a gun at the rich to pay their fair taxes?? You really got me on that one."
All taxes are collected, ultimately, at the point of a gun, in that the Sate, through it's legitimate monopoly on the use of violence through the Police Power, enforces the Law.
You don't pay your taxes you get sent to jail. You resist going to jail you are subject to whatever escalating level of violence is needed to bring you to jail, up to having a gun pointed, and if necessary, fired at you.
That is what I meant by taxes being taken at the point of a gun: they are coerced, not voluntary.
Nothing profound, just a true and incontrovertible observation of the obvious.
We were talking about compassion, and my simple point was that while it may be compassionate for you to give money to the needy, it is not compassionate for you to compel by the threat of violence (State sanctioned or not) another to do so.
Jesus said that if you would follow him, you should sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor and needy. He didn't say that you should go and steal all your neighbor's possessions!
"I started the grass roots earmarks movement back in 2005. http://denbec.blogspot.com/2005/12/ill-have-2-eggs-over-easy-with-ham-and.html"
All the more reason for you to give a public shout out to the Republicans for their recent banning of earmarks (and to criticize the Dems for NOT doing it).
I'll be waiting...
Wow...I guess this has been around for awhile, but I've just come across it it for the first time over at RealClearPolitics.com
When you have a few free moments, check it out, it's highly relevant to this discussion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj7nRc3_EG0&feature=player_embedded
Andre - if there is a fire at your house - would you like the fire department to come put it out? Do you think law enforcement helps keep you safe? Is education important to you? Do you like to drive on paved roads - bridges that won't collapse and fly through the air in relative safety? Do you want to know that your buildings are erected to withstand forces of nature in the area?
These are just some of the many social programs our government provides. Without them our society would not exist as it is. All of these needed programs cost money - and lots of it. Everyone who is capable must contribute their fair share for the common good of all in the form of taxes.
That's how Government works - or should work. If you are not comfortable with this arrangement - then perhaps you can find another place to live that doesn't have such a socialist society. But good luck finding one.
This will be my last comment on this post - but you, of course, may continue.
Hey Den, you must have made some mistake and accidentaly posted a comment here from some other discussion you were having somewhere else on the internet...you and I were talking about the relative merits of high vs. low taxation and their repsective relationships to job creation, but you posted a comment from some other conversation you were having with someone about taxing vs. not taxing at all, which is of course a completely different subjuct, and one which we have never even considered.
I'm just bringing this to your attention because I'm assuming that since you've accidently sent the reply that was meant for him (her?) to me, than you might have also sent your latest reply meant for me to him, and I wouldn't want to miss it.
But while I'm waiting....
I couldn't help but notice something VERY interesting, and perhaps revealing, in your comments to that other person.
You mention a number of things: police and fire protection,education, roads, bridges, etc.
Notice what they all have in common?
No? OK. I'll tell you: none of those things require that we send a single dollar to Washington! They are all legitimate functions of government that were intended by the Framers to be within the proper and efficient jurisdiction of local and State governments.
That's what's interesting about it.
What's revealing about it is what I suspect it shows about your true instincts and orientation.
Come on, face it....you are at heart a small government Conservative! I know that it's scary...I know that within your community such an alternative and minority lifestyle brings along with it the risk of ostricization, even perhaps out right persecution...but you have to be true to your inner self.
It's time you came out of the closet.
Pride.
Good news, my Doom and Gloomy friend: it turns out that the cup is slightly more than half full after all.
I stumbled upon these two nuggets of true Hope and Change, at two different websites today. Enjoy.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MTkxODQ0ODJkNGY3YWNiODJmMWM5NmRmZGViNzZhMWM=
be sure to watch part II also:
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NjdhYzEwMzA4Zjg5OTc0ZDc3Nzc4YmU0YThhM2U5NmM=
Looking forward to the next three installments!
This one rocks too:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/12/07/healthier-and-wealthier-in-200-hundred-years/
Post a Comment